Excerpts from:

The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Instruction and Native

Language Exposure for Advanced L2 Learners in Chinese
Pragmatics: Apologies
Masters dissertation by Yu-Fang Liao
On the whole, implicit instruction has drawn less attention than explicit instruction
in the language instruction and has a more vague definition. HoweverThough,
implicit instruction is different from simply exposure to input. One example of
implicit instruction is found inat Tateyamas (2001) study. In the explicit group,
handouts and videos were used to illustrate and explain the different strategies to
be used in different social context. The explicit group only watched the clip once,
wWhereas, the same video clip was also shown to the implicit group watched the
same clip twice, while the explicit group only get to watch the same clip once. The
other differencet between her explicit and implicit treatments is the students in the
implicit group were prompted to pay attention to any formulaic pragmatic routines
to avoid distraction by other interesting aspects of the video before watching the
video. (Tateyama, 2001, p. 204). Hence, implicit instruction also has instruction
involved, but from using a less direct and more student-centered approach.
In addition to Kondo, Kasper (1997) explaineds the purpose of incorporating
pragmatics into the language classroom. Kasper saidys that teaching pragmatics
rules and strategies are not taught with the purpose of is not for teaching new
information, but of helpingto have learners become aware of what they know
already and encourage them to use their universal or transferable L1 pragmatic
knowledge in L2 contexts (p. 108).
Besides raising the cultural awareness of L2 learners, L2 speakers need to learn that
other variables, such as the severity of the offense or the distance to the listeners,
were other elements needed to be taught to the L2 speakers to takemust be taken
into consideration when apologizing. Teachers have the responsibility to clarify
different types of strategies or rules to be used on different subjects and situations,
since those rules were unlikely to be picked up by students themselves (Bourgerie,
1996).

Previous studies did not agreeshow a disagreement on the effect thatof

length of stay in the target country has on pragmatics development. Some
suggested length of residency is an important contribution to L2 pragmatics
development (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Schmidt, 1993; Wu, Case & Wang, 2009).
Some held a different point of view;, in which researchers assertedbelieve
that simple exposure to the environment is insufficient (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001;
Iino, 2006) or that it it takes a very long time in order to notice itsthe effect
(Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985).